Here are my observations and opinions on the impeachment trial and other matters of interest from my select news of the day.
THE REAL ABUSE OF POWER is getting little attention by the media, so fixated on the effort by Schiff & Co. to pin that ridiculous charge on President Trump for carrying out the duties of his office.
If you haven’t heard, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) Thursday declassified an admission disclosed in its January 7, 2020 judicial order that two of four warrants against Trump campaign advisor Carter Page lacked probable cause.
In brief, the “mistakes” made by the disgraced former FBI Director James Comey and his staff, revealed by Michael Horowitz’s DOJ IG report, are now clear, and Carter Page can go about trying to restore his good name after three years of ugly media reporting based on smearing by the FBI.
Yet to come is information that kick-started the counterintelligence probe of the effort to nail Trump. That, I understand, is being investigated by U.S. Attorney John Durham. And, in the end, accountability charges must be levelled against Comey and those complicit with his orders at the FBI.
SCHIFF CONTINUES TO DIG A HOLE – Adam Schiff would have you believe that he is the all-knowing expert in the role and duties of the president of the United States, and a fawning media is perpetuating that myth.
Cartoon courtesy of Gary Varvel.
Americans know, or should know, that the president of the United States has, under the Constitution, primary authority to determine U. S. foreign policy.
However, on Thursday, he dug another shovel load of crap, when he told the senators at the impeachment trial that the president must be removed from office because he refused to follow the talking points prepared by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, prior to his phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky.
You may recall that Vindman wore his Army uniform to the House hearing in November to help create an image of a patriot, even though his normal day-to-day attire is civilian clothing. The arrogance he displayed over the fact that his talking points were ignored by the president was sickening.
“(The president’s comments) were not consistent with what I provided,” the disturbed Vindman testified. He’s been out of uniform, associating with unelected bureaucrats, long enough to come to believe that they are the ones who make foreign policy.
It should not be forgotten that when Vindman determined that in his mind that the president’s call was improper, he didn’t follow the chain of command to make his opinion known. So much for his military bearing.
For those of you who didn’t witness Schiff’s Thursday digging, here’s his ridiculous statement:
“I just want to underscore this: he’s not obligated to use his talking points. He’s not obligated to follow the recommendations of his staff no matter how sound they may be. But what this makes clear is it wasn’t U.S. policy that he was conducting. It was his private, personal interests that he was conducting. If it was U.S. policy, it probably would have been in the talking points and briefing material. But, of course, it was not.”
AN ASIDE: Kramerontheright recalls preparing talking points and writing speeches for executives during my corporate business career. They were not always used word for word, but I certainly understood that it was the executive who determined what and how he wanted something stated.
President Trump may or may not have read Vindman’s talking points. I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. He directs foreign policy, not Vindman or any other diplomat. They are not in their positions to author foreign policy, but to advise and advance the president’s foreign policy.
I trust that the president’s attorneys – Cipollone, Sekulow and the others – will make sure that’s understood as they present the defense that Schiff, members of the Senate and those watching on television.
CHUCK SCHUMER, who is auditioning for Senate Majority Leader, commenting on Schiff’s daily rant, said it was “concise.” Wait! The dictionary states the meaning of concise as “giving a lot of information clearly, and in a few words, brief but comprehensive.” I believe he came closer to “bloviating.”
THE REMOVAL OF AMBASSADOR Marie Yovanovitch as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine by President Trump, though handled clumsily, was certainly within the purview of his role as president. Those who serve in appointed positions serve at the pleasure of the president. Incidentally, the State Department found another spot for her as the diplomat in residence at the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT – Lt. Col. Vindman continues to hold down a chair in the national security council office of the White House. He, I believe, will be deployed somewhere else after the impeachment trial.
CLAIRE McCASKILL, the former Democrat senator from Missouri, obviously found a home where she is welcome, as an analyst for the fake news outlet MSNBC. In my last report, I quoted her as saying that her former colleagues in the Senate admired Adam Schiff.
Thursday, she foolishly claimed that “This is all Putin pulling his string. He owns Donald Trump – lock, stock, and barrel,” during a discussion of Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine investigation.
When you are reminded that she once said that Trump was the “founder of ISIS,” it’s not difficult to understand how Josh Hawley could win her Senate seat in 2018.
PEGGY NOONAN tends to confuscate matters in her latest column. No surprise. Prior to the trial it was her opinion that, “the president is guilty of shaking down the government of Ukraine for personal political gain, that he has rightly been embarrassed for this, and that the fit final punishment with an election coming was censure, not impeachment.
“But we are where we are, and the proceedings can be enriched if both parties unclench and let this thing broaden out.”
She wants witnesses. ”History deserves them; the public wants them, according to polls, and will not be fully served without them. Take the time. Throw everything against the wall, let historians sort it out.”
In typical liberal fashion, Noonan fantasizes – “Scrub this saga as thoroughly as possible and then leave it to history, which will find in it valuable materials to the ways and mores of early 21st-century American politics.
“Then end this,” she simply concludes, before conceding in the end that “the 67 votes needed to convict won’t materialize.”
So, we have suffered through an ill-conceived trial by an ill-prepared House, and now Noonan wants to broaden the investigation for “history.” Oh my.
How sad it is to me, to see Noonan’s credibility diminish in each column.
AND FINALLY – I’m looking forward to Saturday, when the White House counsel will respond to the lengthy repetitive rant of Adam Schiff.
May God bless the United States of America.
